Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

A Confused Believing Agnostic


Ziggy

Recommended Posts

Hi Amanda!

 

To answer your question about for OM start reading here:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...ndpost&p=108468

 

See OM? I too pay close attention sometimes! :grin:

 

:)Hi Antlerman!

 

Thanks... AGAIN! :thanks:

 

 

 

 

 

:) Open Minded... thanks! :thanks:

 

I did read the thread Antlerman pointed out.

Nice to read your POV. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Open_Minded

    35

  • Ziggy

    30

  • SkepticOfBible

    16

  • Amanda

    13

:) Open Minded... Thanks! :thanks:

 

I did read the thread Antlerman pointed out.

Nice to read your POV. :grin:

 

No problem, Amanda.

 

This forum has been so helpful for me.... I truly believe that every human is involved in the search for ultimate reality, ultimate truth, mystery, ultimate sacredness, etc... and when we intentionally expose ourselves to varied positions then we grow. I know that I have grown tremendously being exposed to all the life experiences and points of view on this board. And....so.... I'm always happy to explore these things with others :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Robert :)

 

I'm new here, as well, but I've asked myself the same questions at some point and I will give you my thoughts on this subject...

I feel that there is truth in most of what Jesus said about ourselves. ie love one another etc ie a truth not about scientific fact but about how we as humans work.

I don't think we can underestimate this. As humans our normal reaction to being wronged, for instance, is revenge ... but Jesus said that we should turn the other cheek etc.

We had a news story recently in the Uk where a black teenager was killed by two youths in the street in an unprovoked attack. The mother was a Christian and although obviously distraught she actually said she forgave the attackers because to harbour hate etc wrong and just leads to more hate.

Yes, Jesus and the NT give us a high moral standard to live by. HOWEVER, who says these morals need to come from a theological basis? I know many atheists who have an extremely high moral standard and they have ZERO background or belief in any theological system.

 

If the morals set out by Jesus work for you...that's great! (and I truly do believe they have much value) But, I believe those same morals can be found and adopted without a spiritual basis.

 

This topic is actually very interesting to me at this time, because my best friend is dating a Biblical Christian, (my friend is atheist) and her boyfriend just couldn't wrap his head around the idea of a moral code coming from anything BUT a theological [read: Christian] basis. He truly has no idea the basis of my friend's morals and values. I find this very disturbing, because, taking that mindset into consideration, one would assume that he perceives anyone who has no theological belief to be lacking in morals. :eek:

 

I think he's learning, though. :grin:

 

There is a philosopher (who it was escapes my memory right now) who purported that all humans are inherently evil. I believe the opposite. All humans are born inherently 'good' (for lack of a better term) and who they turn out to be is greatly affected by external circumstance and influence. This is certainly up for debate, however. :shrug:

 

Just my 2 canadian cents :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Jesus and the NT give us a high moral standard to live by. HOWEVER, who says these morals need to come from a theological basis? I know many atheists who have an extremely high moral standard and they have ZERO background or belief in any theological system.

 

Hello its Just me - meaning you.. if you understand..Great - I'm confused already :Doh:

 

I totally agree that every one is who they are because of their influences and experiences. These can be good and bad Karl Marx used to complain that no man was ever truly free because they wer e so inextricably bound to their and their families past, traditions and history.

I am not sure everyone is Good. Kids brought up with no parents or guidance would be totally wild if they could survive at all. So they must get their goodness from their influences and experience. Plus some kids from good families turn bad ... who knows why.

 

Anyway interesting point about morality. I have it me somewhere that the morality from a true believing Christian would be stronger than what would generally be found in other people - but maybe thats my back ground and i have to learn! I have food for thought now. Thanks

 

Well worth every penny of your 2 canadian cents !

 

On the first point that most people believe that Christianity is the only way to God: I'm not sure if that's entirely true. Don't most people accept Christianity on a cultural and personal level and not so much theological?

 

Hi Antlerman. Again I think there are things I think i need to think through some more. In the UK generally there is not such a strong divide between Literalist and not so literalist Christians.

My view is that there quite a few non literal Christians but its the one who are more Literal that are the ones actually running the Church's. If someone stood up and said that Jesus was the son of god who saved your sins etc no one would verbally complain even if there were a few who did n't agree. If someone else stood up and said that christ was not the only way to God then all Hell would break loose (pun acknowledged!) So the literalists are keeping the church going because they are sticking to a clear message which can be preached.

 

OM 's points are interesting about the wisdom of Jesus rather than the literal view (he was the son of god who can save you from sin.. and only he can etc). I think OM's views border on Bhuddism (I think - s'cuse my ignornance if this wrong) which says that there are many ways to God or enlightenment and non are wrong.

The Church as i know it could not function as it does if they took this on board as true. If you take literal thinking out of Christianity you are not left with Christianity.

 

OM - on this point. Do you believe that Christ was the Son of God and we was not just a man?

And if not what your church say to you if you told them?

 

Anyway I am thinking long and hard about these things ... thanks for headaches!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure everyone is Good. Kids brought up with no parents or guidance would be totally wild if they could survive at all. So they must get their goodness from their influences and experience. Plus some kids from good families turn bad ... who knows why.

 

Ahhh, but the kids were 'born' inherently good. It would be the experience of not having parental guidance that would make them 'totally wild'....but even that is speculation. This reminds me of the ficticious work 'Lord of the Flies'. If I were to have written that, I would have had the kids create the ultimate utopian civilization...with the idea that they had the ability to DO that simply because there WAS a lack of adult supervision...supervision that would also accompany bigotry, hate and all other negative things adults learn over time. :wicked:

 

As for kids from good families going bad...again, in my opinion, they were 'born' good. If the family upbringing was fair and loving', by the process of elimination, there was something external to the family that the child experienced that made them 'turn bad'. (and most of the time these 'bad' kids are not bad at all...just very confused) ;)

 

 

 

Anyway interesting point about morality. I have it me somewhere that the morality from a true believing Christian would be stronger than what would generally be found in other people - but maybe thats my back ground and i have to learn!

 

*nods* Glad you found something of value in that....with the depreciation of the canadian dollar, it's hard to find a good value these days! hehe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Antlerman. Again I think there are things I think i need to think through some more. In the UK generally there is not such a strong divide between Literalist and not so literalist Christians.

My view is that there quite a few non literal Christians but its the one who are more Literal that are the ones actually running the Church's. If someone stood up and said that Jesus was the son of god who saved your sins etc no one would verbally complain even if there were a few who did n't agree. If someone else stood up and said that christ was not the only way to God then all Hell would break loose (pun acknowledged!) So the literalists are keeping the church going because they are sticking to a clear message which can be preached.

I'm sure that would be true even here in more liberal churches. I'm thinking they use traditional language, such as "Christ died for your sins", even though they may take it themselves to mean many things that are not in the strict literal sense. I see liberal preachers use words that are signs and symbols, "the blood of Christ" etc. The importance to them is not its strict literal meaning, but rather its mythological meaning. I've known students of Catholic seminaries who do not accept them as literally *real*, but still feel the message of what they mean is the important bit.

 

I've said a few times on this site elsewhere that in order for these symbols to work, they must be elevated in the realm of the transcendent. Otherwise if they are supposedly temporal, real characters and stories they become suspicious and errant in the analysis, and fail to work as a mythology. So yes, of course they wouldn't come out and say to a general, mixed congregation, that the traditional mythology they are familiar with isn't all that real! I believe most people know this down inside, but to acknowledge it openly, *while in church in particular* would pretty much kill the experience! It's like telling your kid, "Now I have to admit there's not a real Santa, but if you're really good, he's going to bring you a special present this year!" Kind of kills it, doesn't it?

 

Is this a manipulation of the masses? Well, in the strictest sense, yes, but by a willing crowd who want what it offers. BTW, I'm not judging this as necessarily a bad thing.

 

I might be wrong about how it is over there, but it's just meant as a possiblity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, Jesus and the NT give us a high moral standard to live by.

 

Well, I wouldn't completely agree. Jesus also told people to obey the commandments from the OT. He may have emphasised certain OT laws, but on many occasion he certainly said "you have to follow the OT laws that were given to Moses".

 

And when read you the laws in details, I wouldn't consider all of them moral, but on the other hand I will consider them immoral(eg the laws which including stoning)

 

It was Paul who came and started saying that the "Law is obselete". Hence the confusion amongst christian whether the OT laws exist or not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh, but the kids were 'born' inherently good. It would be the experience of not having parental guidance that would make them 'totally wild'....but even that is speculation. This reminds me of the ficticious work 'Lord of the Flies'. If I were to have written that, I would have had the kids create the ultimate utopian civilization...with the idea that they had the ability to DO that simply because there WAS a lack of adult supervision...supervision that would also accompany bigotry, hate and all other negative things adults learn over time.

 

Pleasant way of thinking but I think Lord of the Flies is pretty accurate. Remember these were teenage males, and many teenage males cause all sorts of problems. Maybe as they grew up there would become some sort of order but i am sure there would nt be a utopian society. They would be just as likely to become cannibals or something but with in their own group they would form some sort of rules and order.

 

I agree though that kids who go bad are in most cases confused or have a personality disorder...something else rather than just 'bad'

 

I'm sure that would be true even here in more liberal churches. I'm thinking they use traditional language, such as "Christ died for your sins", even though they may take it themselves to mean many things that are not in the strict literal sense.

 

Antlerman, Do you have any proof that most people in the Church - even the lieteralists - do not really believe everything they preach literally? I mean the key issues. Christ being the Son of God and died to save our sins etc.

I don't mean to doubt you and agree that there are many Christians who do not take everything literally. But in my experience there is a core group in most churches who do take it all pretty much in a literal sense and you could NOT get them to say they believe otherwise. Just wondering if you know what you say to be true or is it just your opinion?

 

 

Well, I wouldn't completely agree. Jesus also told people to obey the commandments from the OT. He may have emphasised certain OT laws, but on many occasion he certainly said "you have to follow the OT laws that were given to Moses".

 

There were the 10 commandments. Then there was the Law given to Moses which was impossibly detailed and by todays thinking much of it is very strange.

However Christianity says that Jesus came to replace the Law. The way to the father was not through abiding by the Law but through Christ. There is no confusion in the Church as far as i know over that one.

You cannot have written laws that can cover every situation (even written laws in now can be turned around by clever lawyers) so the most important part of law and order is what people are like inside. This is what mostly what jesus taught and these sort of teachings are still relevent today just as they were then Like Love your neighbor as yourself, and the one about finding a spec of dust in a persons eye when you have plank in your own..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were the 10 commandments. Then there was the Law given to Moses which was impossibly detailed and by todays thinking much of it is very strange.

The law of OT was not just the 10 commandments. In the Old Testament, God(or Jehovah) laid down a complicated moral code to his people which contains over 600 various statutes, judgments, precepts, testimonies, and commandments which are known as God's Holy Law.

 

You really should read the bible

 

Deut 4:1-2

Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes(laws) and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

 

Deut 11:1

Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always.

 

Keeping the laws of God are defined as the essence of righteousness:

 

In the Messianic era which Christians claim Jesus ushered in, God promised that he would cause the people to obey all his statutes, not just the Ten Commandments.

 

Ezek 36:27

And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

 

Ezek 37:24

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

 

Keeping the laws of God are defined as the essence of righteousness:

 

Psa 119:1-4

Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.

Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.

They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.

Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.

 

These very laws are declared perfect and everlasting

 

Psa 111:7-8

The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.

They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

 

Psa 19:7

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

 

Christian don't observe one of major 10 commandments

 

"Thou Should Observe The Sabbath".

 

The sabbath day should be observed on Saturday, not Sunday

 

However Christianity says that Jesus came to replace the Law. The way to the father was not through abiding by the Law but through Christ.

 

Matt 5:18-20

For verily I(Jesus Speaking) say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven

 

There is no confusion in the Church as far as i know over that one.

Oh really, then why the hell do fundamentalist keep quoting laws from Levitus when they want to condemn Homosexuality or when they condemn other sexual crimes

You cannot have written laws that can cover every situation (even written laws in now can be turned around by clever lawyers) so the most important part of law and order is what people are like inside.

 

Please read the following links. It will clear up many of your misconception about the OT

 

What Is The Status Of God's Law?

Debate About the law - 1

Debate About the law - 2

Debate About the law - 3

 

Also check out all the other articles too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law of OT was not just the 10 commandments. In the Old Testament, God(or Jehovah) laid down a complicated moral code to his people which contains over 600 various statutes, judgments, precepts, testimonies, and commandments which are known as God's Holy Law.

 

Pritishid I have read the Bible although i would be the first to admit that many pople would know it better.

I know enough to agree with you that the Law was a complicated moral code with a huge amount of statutes. I though this was what i actually said in mt post so there is no agrument there.

 

However you then seem to be saying that this OT Law is the being held as the way to righteousness by Christians and i do not agree and the Bible does not not either.

 

Firstly though my sentence saying that Christ came to replace the Law was incorrect as you pointed out in that verse in Matthew.

BUT the whole of the new testament contains references to Jesus berating the keepers of the Law for being hypocrytes. The keep the Law in a very strict way but they are missing the point of what Jesus taught.

 

For instance Luke 11, vrs 39. Now then you Pharisees clean the outside of your cup and plate but inside you are full of violence and evil. Fools did not god who made the outside also make the inside?

 

The reason being that the Law itself will not help you if inside you are not clean. This is true for all Humans.

 

Christian don't observe one of major 10 commandments

"Thou Should Observe The Sabbath".

The sabbath day should be observed on Saturday, not Sunday

 

Why is this such a bad thing? Its an example of the same situation as above - there are many more important things to worry about and whether you have a sabbath on a saturday or a sunday make no difference.

 

Check out Matthew 12 vrs - I'll paraphrase

The Pharisees said 'look it is against our Law to eat grain on the Sabbath'

Jesus answered with two examples of people breaking the Law - David and the Priests - who he said were not wrong in doing so because their reasons for doing so were right.

And he ended saying I tell you there is something here greater than the temple It is kindness i want not animal sacrifices (ie the Law) If you really knew what this means you would not condemn people who are not guilty for the son of man is the sabbath.

 

To my mind that last sentenceabout the sabbath describes your view - which i cannot adhere to.

 

I am here to learn if i can from others on this forum and am not looking to convert or deconvert anyone. But I have to agrue my understanding and if i am proved wrong thats great. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh really, then why the hell do fundamentalist keep quoting laws from Levitus when they want to condemn Homosexuality or when they condemn other sexual crimes

 

I think fundamantalist views on sexual sins like this can also be judged in a simlar way - ie its what is on the inside that is the main thing. I think that there are sexual sines but quoting staight from the OT Laws is wrong in my view but then many many things that fundamentalists say i do not agree with

 

I have yet to read the link you have given but i will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OM 's points are interesting about the wisdom of Jesus rather than the literal view (he was the son of god who can save you from sin.. and only he can etc). I think OM's views border on Bhuddism (I think - s'cuse my ignornance if this wrong) which says that there are many ways to God or enlightenment and non are wrong.

 

The Church as i know it could not function as it does if they took this on board as true. If you take literal thinking out of Christianity you are not left with Christianity.

 

OM - on this point. Do you believe that Christ was the Son of God and we was not just a man?

And if not what your church say to you if you told them?

 

Anyway I am thinking long and hard about these things ... thanks for headaches!

 

Hello Robert:

 

I believe Jesus is the Word made Flesh - I don't need the cross or a virgin birth to hang my Christian hat on :)

 

How to explain this.... For me Jesus is very real. I believe all of creation is the Word made Flesh as well - but somehow Jesus is distinquished. And I can't tell you specifically how - in my mind he is in Christ - in all of creation. I can look at him and see what the follower who wrote the 1st verses of John saw in him. I call myself a Christian on those three words, "WORD made Flesh".

 

But, I also recognize that if I'd been born in another culture, say the Buddhist culture that I would feel a different way.

 

I refer back to the Hindu story I told in the Silly Putty thread...

 

Let’s go with my version of wisdom, ok. Truth is too big for me, I won’t say I have a version of the truth. Yes, I do believe our understanding of wisdom can vary and yet we can both be “right”. My pastor (a pastor of a mainstream Lutheran church) often tells a Hindu story that addresses this issue. I’ve seen the story in writing once, and cannot find it to quote it here. So, I’m going from memory. If there is a Hindu out there, reading this, feel free to jump in and tell the story in full.

 

But in short, my understanding of the story is that 3-4 Hindu wise men find themselves in a dark cave with an elephant that they cannot see. They sense the presence of something else in the cave with them, it is alive and breathing but that is all they can tell. So they decide to explore this “something”. And using their hands they start to explore. One feels its trunk and proclaims this animal to be solid and wide. Another feels the tail and describes it as thin and spindly. Yet another wise man feels the huge rough sides of the elephant and claims that whatever it is they are exploring is very large and nondescript. The fourth wise man feels the ears and declares that this something they are feeling is quite floppy and flat. It is not until they light a lantern that they are able to see the whole picture. None of these wise men were wrong, they were experiencing different aspects of the same being, that is all.

 

It is possible for me to understand Jesus the way I do and others to deny it. I don't feel a need to argue the point.

 

How would people in my congregation feel, if I told them?

 

Our congregation is a mixed group - 150 year old church. Some very elderly people - traditional and even literalist in their thinking. All the way to the meditation group I'm involved in - where people are very liberal. My pastor knows my feelings and accepts me. The people in our meditation group range from agnostic, to Christian/Hindu (I'm not sure what he calls himself. He grew up Christian - has study the Hind path extensively and participates in our group. I've never asked him). We also have one couple that is very well versed in the Native American traditions (even as varied as they are). I speak freely of my feelings in this group.

 

Our congregations as a whole??? ? I'd never stand up and tell them my feelings, why --- because they know me for who I am in their life. I'm this person who came into their midst as a rabble rouser to begin with. When I came - other families came with me. We had been run out of another church in town. From the beginning they've welcomed us in - as different as we all are. Because we are there this church is hosting interfaith dialogs, regularly. Because we are there, there is a meditative service - where we read texts from the other world religions sacred literature alongside Christian texts. Because we are there - they had to rearrange their service times to accomodate our meditative/interfaith service - and for the most part they did so without complaint. I wouldn't even think of standing up and telling them my beliefs about Jesus. They see my beliefs acted out regularly in the way I practice my spirituality and they have accepted me and I am grateful :) And their actions towards me, and my friends tell me everything I need to know about them.

 

Does this answer your questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like telling your kid, "Now I have to admit there's not a real Santa, but if you're really good, he's going to bring you a special present this year!" Kind of kills it, doesn't it?

 

:grin:Hi Antlerman! I pretty much agree with your whole post. As always, you are so insightful, IMO.

 

I like the analogy of Santa Claus. However, I would like to point out here, that Santa Claus is a real person... St. Nicholas. Yet, mythology of Kris Kringle and a lot of commercialism capitalizing on all this has turned St. Nicholas into something he's never been. It is a shame, IMO, because I think the TRUE story is a much more enriching and endearing one... even though it is of someone who is really quite human. Mixing these lies with the truth does seem to really kill it. :ugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow...it's allways so interesting to read thinking that is so radically different from mine. To me, when I read of people relating of how they probe every religious text they can find to search for spiritual truth, it seems very odd. I don't know what anyone can expect to find there that could possibly satisfy them. To me, the word "spiritual" is something that is interpreted many ways by participants in these discussions, so let me try to clarify mine, so you know what I mean. I don't care what a dictionary says, so don't quote it to me. If you want to understand what I mean by "spiritual" it is something felt deeply and whole-heartedly.

So, it seems so odd to me that when a person seeks spiritual satisfaction, that they look in books that describe events before any recorded history, and beings and detailed futures that require unreasoned faith and an unquenchable desire to believe in. That is not the internal atmosphere, or just plain basic approach to anything remotely resembling a satisfactory result. So why bother with all these books and looking to the heavens?......take careful inventory of your reactions to that statement....have you been programmed?.....I think a lot of you have been and have an intellectual firewall in place that is impervious to threats of this nature. I think that to look for anything spiritual in ones life it only makes sense to search within yourself and in the world around you as a basis, before prayerfully beaming off into the straosphere to commune with those written about thousands of years ago. What I have found is that by thoroughly deprogramming from phobias installed by religion and it's societal counterparts, we can all live happily. We just don't need this stuff. What we need is a way and a vehicle for our imaginations, and we are better off choosing that on our own than in having that need highjacked by religion and controled by it's dogma. But, a lot of people believe that they are making choices when they "choose" a faith. It's my contention that faiths that make necessary a huge amount of detail in how you should behave and react are not chosen, but acquiesced to from a coercive source, fear of hell and all of that crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church as i know it could not function as it does if they took this on board as true. If you take literal thinking out of Christianity you are not left with Christianity.

I read something that stated something along the lines of: How does one deny Christianity if it has never been given a chance? If Christianity, as it is now, is to die off then what would be left would be what it was originally intended to be. So, what Christianity is today is not what Christianity actually is. :grin: To take the literal thinking out of Christianity is just what it needs in order to return to what it originally was. It would be like taking the wolf's clothing off of the sheep. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks OM for your explanation. i understand your position well.. now i need to work out what I can accept and use from it to help my situation. May take time! :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Christianity, as it is now, is to die off then what would be left would be what it was originally intended to be. So, what Christianity is today is not what Christianity actually is. :grin: To take the literal thinking out of Christianity is just what it needs in order to return to what it originally was. It would be like taking the wolf's clothing off of the sheep.

 

:grin:HI NBBTB!

 

So, so, so true! What we have today is NOT what it was intended to be! :o

 

However, perhaps its true intentions goes on in a forum like this. :wink: A search for the Truth by combining sciences, philosophies, and teachings of spiritual teachers... to give us a perspective of what life is really all about. And maybe it is what Carl Sagan said... something like, we are the part of the cosmos in which it might know itself.

 

It's a nice thought to me, anyway. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read something that stated something along the lines of: How does one deny Christianity if it has never been given a chance? If Christianity, as it is now, is to die off then what would be left would be what it was originally intended to be. So, what Christianity is today is not what Christianity actually is. :grin: To take the literal thinking out of Christianity is just what it needs in order to return to what it originally was. It would be like taking the wolf's clothing off of the sheep. :HaHa:

 

WOW... NotBlinded.... that is so true. It's not good to ignore 1700 years of history... but there is real value in getting back to the original layers of Christianity - before politics took it over and assigned creeds and canonical gospels and heretical gospels, etc... All the world lost when politics took over Christianity. But - it is not new to humanity - and it will always be an ongoing struggle....

 

Thanks OM for your explanation. i understand your position well.. now i need to work out what I can accept and use from it to help my situation. May take time!

 

You're asking good questions and you will find answers that "fit", just give it time and remain open minded ;) (no pun intended) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it seems so odd to me that when a person seeks spiritual satisfaction, that they look in books that describe events before any recorded history, and beings and detailed futures that require unreasoned faith and an unquenchable desire to believe in. That is not the internal atmosphere, or just plain basic approach to anything remotely resembling a satisfactory result. So why bother with all these books and looking to the heavens?.

 

Charley... speaking for myself... it may be the way I'm "wired" :) You see I love history.... all of it. I love how history can teach us lessons.... so we don't repeat the mistakes of history and also so that we can learn from the productive actions and experiences of humans who lived before us. So, the fact that this plays out in my spiritual life is of little surprise, wouldn't you say????

 

.....take careful inventory of your reactions to that statement....have you been programmed?.....I think a lot of you have been and have an intellectual firewall in place that is impervious to threats of this nature.

 

That may be so :shrug: But objectively speaking, if I were operating from a "programmed" perspective don't you think I'd feel "threatened" or "angry" by your remarks??? And somehow I don't. It's ok that you see things the way you do, but I also know the path I've taken, the questions I've asked, much like Robert is asking, and how I came to the conclusions I came to. And oddly enough, I've reached a point in my life where other people's opinions of my own journey don't really matter that much to me. Objectively speaking, this outlook is not something that you would expect from an individual who has not really thought about their feelings and beliefs.....

 

I think that to look for anything spiritual in ones life it only makes sense to search within yourself and in the world around you as a basis,

 

I agree with you completely. But - for me - lover of history that I am - part of the world around me is its history (all of its history - the good, the bad and the ugly) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks OM for your explanation. i understand your position well.. now i need to work out what I can accept and use from it to help my situation. May take time!

 

It can be done more quickly, too. I'll give some quick examples if you ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

:) Hi Open Minded!

 

If you don't mind me asking... how do you feel the present meaning of the label "Christian" fits your walk of life? I can see, more than you know, where you find there are teachings of Christ in which you find most beneficial in a much, much different way than present traditional "Christianity"... So doesn't it seem that with the evolution of things, perhaps that label now misrepresents your beliefs? Think about this.

 

I was told that the Klu Klux Klan were rather beneficial and positively impacting their communities initially. They were sort of like the present Gaurdian Angels. Yet, unfortunately... we know too well that they made some criitcally drastic wrong turns. Their dedication to these wrong turns has given their name/label another meaning than anything remotely similar to the Gaurdian Angels now. So, to continue to hold onto a label because you believe in its initial belief system, is that fairly representing yourself NOW? Just curious as to how you think about this. :shrug::)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be done more quickly, too. I'll give some quick examples if you ask.

 

Hi Charley, what examples had you in mind?

 

I said 'it' may take time because whatever 'it' is needs to be right for me and not taking someones elses view because that seems to work for them. Usually these things take a bit of thinking over.

 

As for your point about not looking into books but inside yourself i would back up OM's response in that you cannot ignore history - in any fom of thinking including spiritual. However i do agree that at the end of the day its what you accept inside yourself today that is the real issue. History just helps you get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said 'it' may take time because whatever 'it' is needs to be right for me and not taking someones elses view because that seems to work for them. Usually these things take a bit of thinking over.

 

You are exactly right, and that is why I regretted putting that up there after I did. Originally, I was going to put a lot more into the post, desribing how I thought that ex-c's are full of phobias in their thinking, similar to having a fear of water or high places, and to suggest how to get rid of that. Then I thought I would just ask to offer that detail to you as I did, and after I pkaced the post, I thought again that you are not in that decisive of a place, and that is too intrusive. Sometimes I sit here and drink esspresso all day, run out of paitience and get rude. This time that wasn't a good thing.... So, anyway, to clarify my other comments about looking into ourselves : I don't neglect history or any system of knowledge that can be backed up with demonstrable evidence for relevancy to our lives in these pursuits in question. What I emphasize is how an approach is based. That is the key. In my view, reading books to get to yourself, to find acceptance of yourself is a roundabout path, because you are allready in touch with yourself. A roundabout path can more than likely distort what is plainly evident in yourself by getting you caught up in beliefs, causes, and righteousness that serves others at your own expense. Every ex-c has their own examples of this. That is why I say, that for your fundamental criterea of self-acceptance and world-view, do your own study of yourself and what you see and experience around you first. Hold on to what you learn that way as the best of your knowledge thus far, and then use that as a basis to evaluate what you read. That's what I'm talking about. What I am addressing is what I see as a basic conditioning of minds by christianity that goes beyond just believing the bible and all the other necessities of a legitamate follower. What I see as that basic conditioning is an impulse to look outside oneself for answers about ourselves, and for final approval on what is acceptable or not. I just think that a radical reversal of that line of thinking as recomended above will yield more thoughts of your own than you have ever had inspired by christianity, and be a good step toward anywhere you wish to go. I hope that wasn't too intrusive. It's just the caffeine talking...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) Hi Open Minded!

 

If you don't mind me asking... how do you feel the present meaning of the label "Christian" fits your walk of life? I can see, more than you know, where you find there are teachings of Christ in which you find most beneficial in a much, much different way than present traditional "Christianity"... So doesn't it seem that with the evolution of things, perhaps that label now misrepresents your beliefs? Think about this.

 

I was told that the Klu Klux Klan were rather beneficial and positively impacting their communities initially. They were sort of like the present Gaurdian Angels. Yet, unfortunately... we know too well that they made some criitcally drastic wrong turns. Their dedication to these wrong turns has given their name/label another meaning than anything remotely similar to the Gaurdian Angels now. So, to continue to hold onto a label because you believe in its initial belief system, is that fairly representing yourself NOW? Just curious as to how you think about this. :shrug::)

 

Hello Amanda...

 

You people ask some excellent questions :grin:

 

Well.... let's see ... first please understand that I have not had personal involvement in and been exposed to the extremes of Christianity that so many on this board have been. This is very important to the discussion at hand. Because I've not experienced those extremes, I don't have extreme emotions towards Christianity.

 

In addition, I honestly don't know what else to call myself.

 

I believe Jesus is the Word made Flesh
- I don't need the cross or a virgin birth to hang my Christian hat on

 

How to explain this....
For me Jesus is very real. I believe all of creation is the Word made Flesh as well - but somehow Jesus is distinquishedx. And I can't tell you specifically how - in my mind he is in Christ - in all of creation.
I can look at him and see what the follower who wrote the 1st verses of John saw in him. I call myself a Christian on those three words, "WORD made Flesh".

 

Keeping in mind - that to me - labels are not the primary means of identifying oneself, what else should I call myself.

 

Beyond all of that.... if people like myself do not stay within the Christian church, who will demand change from within? The church not only needs to be held accountable from without, but also from within.

 

Evolution in general happens slowly.... sometimes too damn slowly. But that is the reality of life in general. The church is more open today than it was 100 years ago. There are many reasons for this, science is one. The fact that the world is getting smaller and Christians must live and work with people of different cultures and religions is another. People who have left Christianity also play their role. But, there is also a roll, for those of us within the church who view things in a broader, more inclusive perspective.

 

So.... even though I have had my time (many years in fact) away from Christianity - I feel at home in it now. Because I have found Contemplative Christianity - a place where I can be myself and make a difference in the larger picture. Amanda - we all bring our pieces of the puzzle to the table. It does not matter to me that the maturing I hope to see in the church will take several generations. It is not about that - spiritually we all owe something to creation, to the future. This is one thing I owe ..... :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

:) Open Minded... thanks for your response. I was just curious as to how you reconciled your beliefs with the popular concept of that label.

 

:) And you've probably said this before in one of these threads, but HOW did God make the word flesh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.